SARUP RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the case of the petitioner is that he had been working as a Secretary of Nanhera Co -operative Agricultural Service Society for about 20 years. One Banwari son of Kundan Lal Saini, resident of village Nanhera, Tehsil Naraingarh, filed complaint against the petitioner Under Section 408/420, Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, on May 24, 1976. The Magistrate, on the same day, passed the following order :complaint presented today. The same be registered. Now the complaint to come up for the statement of the complainant on 29 -5 -1976. On May 29, 1976, the complaint came up before the Magistrate. for hearing. He on that day passed the following order : The case is cognizable. S. H. O, Narairigarh is ordered to make an investigation of the case Under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is stated by the petitioner that the order dated May 24, 1976, shows that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint on that date and in case he had done, so, he could not direct investigation by the police, Under Section 156 (3) of the Code. He further states that such an investigation could be ordered by the Magistrate only prior to taking cognizance of the offence on a complaint. It is also alleged by him that on the basis of the investigation, the police has recorded first information report No. 49 dated June 21, 1976, in the Police Station, Naraingarh. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the above said first information report and the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated May 29, 1976, ordering investigation Under Section 156 (3) be quashed.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a reading of the order dated May 24, 1976, shows that the Magistrate applied his mind and after doing so, he ordered that the complaint be registered and the statement of the complainant be recorded. For that purpose he adjourned the complaint to May 29, 1976. Ac cording to the counsel, if the Magistrate took cognizance of the matter, then he could not direct the police to make an investigation Under Section 156 (3) of the Code. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the aforesaid orders do not show that the Magistrate had applied the mind and they do not amount to taking cognizance of the offence.

(3.) SECTION 156 forms part of Chapter XII, which relates to information to the police and is as follows : 156